nuclear-news

Nuclear safety from terrorism is far more important than nuclear sales

Nuclear power undermines nuclear security, The Ecologist, Dr David Lowry 2nd May 2014 Opponents of nuclear power rightly focus on issues of cost, operational danger and waste disposal, writes David Lowry. But they should not forget the towering ‘elephant in the room’ – nuclear security and the risk of proliferation and terrorist attacks. This week over 150 countries began a two week meeting at the United Nations in New York, preparing for the latest five-yearly review conference of the 190-member state Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The conference will no doubt split between the vast majority of non-nuclear weapons states and the ‘Permanent-Five’ nuclear WMD possessor states – UK, US, France, China and Russia.

At issue will be the continual, chronic  lack of progress in nuclear disarmament by the nuclear WMD states – indeed, in the case of the USA in particular, its colossal program to modernise its nuclear arsenal.

However there is scope for common cause in one area: combatting nuclear terrorism. There’s only one problem here – the nuclear WMD states are themselves among the least secure in their custody of nuclear materials.

Nuclear power and nuclear security

This discussion will put the focus squarely on the 25 states that possess nuclear materials, most of them for civil nuclear programs for the generation of electricity.

Despite reassurances that these nuclear materials present little or no proliferation hazard, the reverse is the case. Nuclear security is the ‘elephant in the room’ of the nuclear power debate

The final communiqué of the Global Nuclear Security Conference that was held last month in The Hague insisted that “measures to strengthen nuclear security will not hamper the rights of States to develop and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.”

Dr Victor Gilinsky, a former member of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, noted in 2009 in his paper ‘A call to resist the nuclear revival’ (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 27 January 2009) that

“even so-called arms controllers fall over themselves trying to establish their bona fides by supporting nuclear energy development and devising painless proposals … “

That mentality was in evidence at the NSS, just as it was at the IAEA nuclear security conference in Austria last July.

But sensibly Gilinsky advocates a reversal of priorities: “Security should come first – not as an afterthought. We should support as much nuclear power as is consistent with international security; not as much security as the spread of nuclear power will allow.”

And if we adopt that approach, it can mean only one thing: zero nuclear power………

‘A grave sovereign responsibility’

“There is no question that securing nuclear materials is a grave, sovereign responsibility. At the same time, the threat is global, and all countries must work to reduce that threat.”

That was the conclusion of the authoritative Nuclear Threat Initiative, 2014 Report, published in Washington DC, on 8 January this year.

Unfortunately far too many nuclear authorities and governments, notably the UK, are putting far too much effort into nuclear cheer-leading – and nowhere near enough into nuclear security.http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2381924/nuclear_power_undermines_nuclear_security.html

May 3, 2014 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | 2 WORLD, safety